May 29, 2011

A beautiful mess

There was a man who worked for the Rand Corporation, he was the subject of the film A Beautiful Mind, but, unlike the film, he was in fact a raving nutcase, he was schizo.

Being schizo did not prevent him from being credited with the invention of Game Theory, even though when it was tested on actual human beings it didn’t work, nor did it prevent the Rand Corp from selling Game Theory to the US Government as the basis behind Mutually Assured Destruction and the nuclear arms standoff with the former USSR.

The whole basis of Game Theory, unsurprisingly, considering it was developed by a schizo, was that you can always rely on the other parties in the game to put their own priorities first and to fuck you over at every opportunity, if they could.

Knowing this, and applying game theory, you could in fact achieve stability, as the USA / USSR did, and this stability itself was quite stable, provided one thing did not happen.

So in fact what was in effect a two player game such as USA / USSR could work, provided that no additional players were allowed to join the game (which is why the nuclear club was so adamant that nobody else could join) as any additional players meant that some of those players would inevitably start to co-operate.

This last little titbit also neatly explains US (and allied) foreign policy, DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOW PLAYERS TO CO-OPERATE WITH EACH OTHER, and of course every fucker including the players / countries in question know what is going on, no wonder they hate the USA for continually rigging the game.

This game rigging is not speculation, it is fact, and it is also fact that Game Theory depends utterly on individual, paranoid, players, all working selfishly… and really, what would you expect a paranoid schizophrenic who developed games called “Fuck You Buddy” while at the Rand Corporation to come up with, except a theory that everyone else on the planet was a paranoid schizo.

Perhaps the only amazing thing is that this idea, like so many fucked up ideas from so many fucked up individual such as (but not limited to) Freud and Bernays, was seized upon as the next big thing by those in power, and applied to society as a whole.

So, true game theory states that players who are forced into states of paranoia and distrust will always fuck the other player over given the chance, and will always assume the other players will do the same to them, given the chance, and this will achieve a state of stability, however, if the players are human beings and if they are allowed to co-operate, then they will skew the entire game beyond all recognition off into some entirely new and unpredictable realm.

The difficulty in politics and statehood has been ensuring a strict two player game, it was doable for a time with the USA / USSR and Nuclear MAD, but even there you had groups (NORAD for example) within each player co-operating to work to mutual ends, and skewing the game itself.

OK, all very interesting, so what’s the point?

The point is that many people, on many sites such as The Spearhead keep talking about marriage, and like everything else, unless you look at the whole picture, you may as well not be looking at anything, because the bits you miss are more important than the bits you are looking at.

Now, many men will empathise with the idea that a divorce / separation and / or child custody battle is in fact not a million miles from the old cold war MAD scenario, or at least, that is how it USED to be… it used to be until some of the players started to co-operate, and when that happened it flew off uncontrollably into an entirely new direction.

No Man who has been through this can fail to be aware that this is not a two player game, you and the soon to be ex, oh no, there is in fact a whole gaggle of other players, all of whom are co-operating with each other.

Lawyers, Courts, Judges, Children’s Services, and indeed the Police (as soon as DV or rape is alleged) all are in fact the very definition of co-operating players.

In Game Theory it doesn’t matter if the co-operating players form a third player group, or if they ally themselves either with or against one side or the other, the mere existence of the co-operating third player group totally and utterly transforms the entire game beyond both all recognition, and also beyond all prediction, and beyond all possibility of stability.

Which is why of course for example US foreign policy is that no Arab states can form a co-operative unit, it may seem to be divisive and all bad, but it does permit a form of predictable steady state, which to those making foreign policy is preferable to a system in which players can co-operate, because THEN the results are literally totally unpredictable.

Unpredictably good or unpredictably bad does not matter to these policy makers, any predictble steady state is preferable, because it is a predictable steady state, and this in turn gives THEM the ecosystem they require in which to co-operate and survive… no need or use for policy makers in a chaotic system… head hurting yet?

However, back to marriage…

It doesn’t matter whether you start talking about marriage 1.0 or 1.1 or any other label you like, as soon as you introduce the ability for some players (and again, it makes no difference at all if they are the main players, the man and woman) to co-operate, you change the entire system utterly, and it becomes both unstable and utterly unpredictable by nature.

Laws themselves, such as no fault divorce, are not players, they are inanimate objects, but they are in effect the rules to the game, and make the game attractive to different sets of players by altering either the table stake or house odds or house cut.

The change is the introduction of the specialist Family Court system, with specialist Family Court Judges and clerks, with specialist Family Court solicitors, with specialist Family Court social workers, with specialist Family Court police.

Suddenly you have altered the game utterly, and you have a whole new set of players who, by their very nature and more legislation, are always working in co-operation with each other.

Suddenly the man and woman in each divorce / separation / custody case, and indeed the kids themselves, are reduced to mere bit players in a system that, as accurately predicted by Game Theory, becomes unstable and flies off uncontrollable in unpredictable directions, the instant you change the rules so that every individual player is no longer an isolated unit playing Fuck You Buddy and MAD equally towards all the other players.

This extended game theory accurately makes the following vitally important predictions.

It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever what the individual nature of each individual player, whether it be a man or a woman, is, no possible combination of individual men and individual women can possibly arrive at a combination that trumps the effects of the other, co-operating players.

Marriage therefore is not defined by the man or the woman, the true nature of marriage and children and family life is defined by the co-operating players.

You can’t even state that marriage is fine as long as you stay away from the other co-operating players and never introduce them into your marriage, because as we have seen from extended game theory, the other co-operating players have already altered the entire game to such an extent and no other individual player can actually make such statements, and indeed we have already reached a situation where these co-operating parties can unilaterally decide to involve themselves in your marriage, even without the man or the woman inviting them in…

Indeed, extended game theory, while it cannot accurately predict how far or in what direction these co-operating players will take the game, it does predict accurately that they will be the sole directing force, which means that they will always seek to increase their influence over the game.

What this means is that not just marriage, but the whole concept of family and having children, is going to fall under ever more influence from these co-operating players, the courts, lawyers, social workers and police.

Merely opting out of marriage per se will not be sufficient, indeed I myself was neither married to nor co-habiting with my ex, and arguably her previous involvement with the co-operating players predisposed her to automatically invoke them again with us, which raises some very interesting questions about the younger generations who were literally raised in societies in which the co-operating players were already operating and so had the largest influence on their lives.

My kids, like the other younger generations, literally do not know a world in which these co-operating players were not by a vast margin the greatest power and influence in their lives…. I grew up thinking and believing that the player known as my dad was God, but all these kids and the younger generations that and now having their own kids have grown up thinking and believing that the co-operating players known collectively as the state are God, think on that.

The conclusions, and consequences, are inevitable.

The co-operating players are still embracing and extending their influence, and individual men and women, whether acting as man and wife or father and mother, are going to see their already insignificant individual input subsumed ever further, while the generations who have already been raised and and are still being raised within this system will only perpetuate it.

Simply wiping out the co-operating players by way of some hypothetical economic collapse will not eradicate the generations of kids raised by this system in which the co-operating players of the State were God, and in which mummy and daddy were mere ciphers.

Wiping that out will take a further two generations, or 40 years.

Thus, the conclusions, and consequences are inevitable and horrific, the next western woman worth marrying hasn’t even been born yet, and won’t be born until at least 20 years after the present system of co-operating state players has collapsed and gone away, which means no girl born before 2035 AD at the very earliest is going to make a good mother or wife… and this is a BEST CASE SCENARIO.

Perhaps the most tragic thing of all is that, while according to extended game theory, once players start co-operating the system is no longer predictable or stable and will always fly off to some extreme, it could so easily have gone the other way, in which the institutions of marriage and parenthood and family were made the core of life, and in which all the co-operating players worked to support these institutions at every opportunity, instead of destroying them.

As I type this, Malta has just voted to allow divorce, which leaves the Philippines as the only country remaining on planet Earth where divorce is illegal, and therefore where the family unit is top priority.

And let us not have any straw man arguments about marriage for life, nobody makes anyone get married, except in exceptional rare circumstances, and even the you prosecute those circumstances, not the whole institution.

So, to sum up, and back to the theme of discussions on sites such as The Spearhead, marriage and family life and parenthood are dead, and none of my children will know them again, though PERHAPS my grand-children will.

If that does not frighten you, nothing will… luckily for all of us in this generation, we will die before the most poisonous and evil of these particular pigeons comes home to roost in society and economy.

Wimminz, well, they are the ones who embraced these changes at every opportunity, and who continue to do so, because it is still in their own short term interests to do so, and frankly there were no peaceful means by which individual men could have beaten this co-operative system.

The “reset” when the pendulum swings back will be utterly transforming for wimminz, it may be an economic resent or an energy economy reset, or it may be a pandemic reset, or indeed it may even be a technological reset based upon a technological step change, but what is certain is that when it comes it will be better to be a man than a wimminz or a niggerz, because both of them are going to face nothing less than an extinction event.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

5 Comments

I sometimes play Devil’s Advocate with myself and imagine that technological progress saves the current system from collapse and it continues on its current direction for several decades.

In that case I can imagine a future where the state pushes aside mothers in the same way it has done to fathers. The logical conclusion to the argument that the state must act in the “best interests of the child” is that the state steps in to protect children from their mothers. Not just occassionally, but as a matter of course.

Image that the state treats all humans as full citizens from birth – why should a child suffer for the shortcomings of its mother? Why should children be treated as possessions? How much damage is done to children by their mothers as a result of poor parenting, poor nutrition, lack of stimulation, or abuse, before the children even reach school? How hard is it to undo this damage?

I can imagine that when technology allows it, the state will appoint a guardian for each child at birth, and the guardian will monitor the child’s progress and meet with the mother on a regular basis to agitate for the childs rights. The child development and environment will be constantly monitored and the mother “counselled” to improve her performance as required. I can imagine nutritional supplements and educational tools and supplementary childcare being provided to help bring the poor performers up to “benchmarks”.

In other words, the child’s primary relationship will be with the protective state, and the mother will not have a right to mold her child as she pleases.

You can think of this as a situation where the state has primary custody of the child, and the mother has access to the child on terms determined by the state.

It may well be an improvement, especially a couple of decades down the track when you have some decent interactive teaching games, housekeeping robots, some fancy medical monitoring software to assess and track general health.

I imagine technology stepping in to provide a crutch for dysfunctional parenting.

Given the tendency of the state to expand its bureaucracy into every aspect of life, how could they resist “helping” in this way?

Will not happen! Maybe it should and I’m not here to pursue a pissing contest with you fine gentlemen, but biological realities are the MAIN/ORIGINAL reasons for female control of the offspring, in most legal scenarios.

Females carry said offspring. There is a biological link between mother and child and this reality trumps most other reasoning one could imagine.